Top Law Schools

I don't even know if I'd know a "gunner" when I saw him/her, unless he/she was of the most obvious/cliche/obnoxious variety.

Is "gunnerism" a sufficient condition for being in the top, say, 10% of one's class (i.e. can someone be a gunner and just suck at it)? Is it a necessary condition (i.e. are all the top students considered by their jealous classmates to be dirty, good-for-nothing gunners irrespective of their actual habits/tendencies/personality)?

I am a 0L who's pretty determined to succeed and am willing to work my tail off to do it. I've also been known to participate in a class or two and have good relationships with my professors. On the other hand, my peers and classmates usually tend to like me just fine and I have good relationships with them as well. I rarely wear my competitiveness on my sleeve.

Am I a gunner?

Without a doubt

Hopefully you can handle the truth.

Not too long ago I saw a post that said a gunner is someone who uses the term "0L".

AtticusFinch wrote:Without a doubt

From my experience, pretty much all of the 0Ls on TLS are ready to work hard. Yet we all sneer at "gunners." I'm curious where the line is.

If you need to ask...

If you can't spot a gunner in your class... its you.

Ragged wrote:If you can't spot a gunner in your class... its you.

So, if the person everyone thinks is a gunner ends up in the bottom half of his class when grades come out, is he still a gunner? I would think yes, he's just a failed gunner.

I have a feeling most people who use term, if told Person X is at the top of the class, would think, "that damn gunner" even if they've never met the person or heard anecdotes of their classroom conduct.

LieutKaffee wrote:

Ragged wrote:If you can't spot a gunner in your class... its you.

So, if the person everyone thinks is a gunner ends up in the bottom half of his class when grades come out, is he still a gunner?

If a student rarely participates in class and has a great social life and happens to also be top 5%, is he a gunner or isn't he?

1.YES
2.NO

LieutKaffee wrote:

Ragged wrote:If you can't spot a gunner in your class... its you.

So, if the person everyone thinks is a gunner ends up in the bottom half of his class when grades come out, is he still a gunner?

If a student rarely participates in class and has a great social life and happens to also be top 5%, is he a gunner or isn't he?

You carrying on like that makes me think you will be a gunner.

The fact that you can't implicitly figure out what a gunner is makes me think you have a high propensity for becoming one.

A gunner is someone who is far too visible for their own good. Hand permanently raised, constantly seeking to interject.

It doesnt' matter if they are top 5 or bottom 5, the point is they are on, all the time. And it is annoying.

There is an impression for new law students that someone who talks a lot in class must be more knowledgeable or smarter. However, as law school progresses, you quickly learn that the smartest kids in the class are often the quietest kids in the class.

I actually think I will be a gunner, for better or for worse. I usually participate alot in class, not to show off, its just the way I keep myself interested.

Ragged wrote:

LieutKaffee wrote:

Ragged wrote:If you can't spot a gunner in your class... its you.

So, if the person everyone thinks is a gunner ends up in the bottom half of his class when grades come out, is he still a gunner?

If a student rarely participates in class and has a great social life and happens to also be top 5%, is he a gunner or isn't he?

You carrying on like that makes me think you will be a gunner.

I'm a person who often enjoys exploring the some of the finer distinctions in life. It comes from my philosophy background, I suspect. I thought we could get some interesting conversation about the substantive definition of the term, such as...

The person always has the right answer when cold called --> gunner

The person speaks out of turn in order to provide correct answers --> gunner

The person speaks out of turn and often provides incorrect answers --> gunner

The person spends most Saturday nights reading --> gunner

I figured people in law school might have something more fun and interesting to contribute to the definition than "look in the mirror, 0L scum." I also thought we might get some fun anecdotes.

Guess I was wrong.

Ragged wrote:I actually think I will be a gunner, for better or for worse. I usually participate alot in class, not to show off, its just the way I keep myself interested.

I tend to think TLS characteristics such as frequency of posts, average length of posts, quality of writing, propensity for giving advice, etc. may be positively correlated with present or future gunnerism. But not the sort of gunnerism I personally would frown upon. I think I can tell the difference between someone who is participating to be a douchebag and someone who is participating to stay engaged, but I'm increasingly wary that the people who throw this word around cannot.

Ragged wrote:I actually think I will be a gunner, for better or for worse. I usually participate alot in class, not to show off, its just the way I keep myself interested.

Ragged... I would never doubt that you would be a gunner.

Kidding. You know a gunner is also a position on an American football team, too, right? (Special teams...)

See? Assimilating to the tier one sport already!

Sorry... Couldn't help razzin' ya a little when I saw you on the thread.

See you back in Optimism!

Also, if there are two different people who participate in class to levels approaching douchebaggery, but one consistently sounds smart while the other sounds like a moron, I am wondering which is more appropriately termed "gunner."

The impression that I get is that "gunner" is often used excessively as a pejorative of some kind among law students for people they don't like. I also suspect that the incidence of true gunners in law school is much less than claimed.

LieutKaffee wrote: Am I a gunner?

417 posts in less than a month is a good start

Just kidding, kaffee, I know that was just the NYU thread/obsession.

Aeon wrote:The impression that I get is that "gunner" is often used excessively as a pejorative of some kind among law students for people they don't like. I also suspect that the incidence of true gunners in law school is much less than claimed.

Your use of this phrase implies there is a truth of the matter. What is the essence of gunnerism? Perhaps it's something internal rather than external. Perhaps gunnerism is defined by a desire to succeed at the expense of others and a willingness to flaunt this desire. The outward expressions of gunnerism are simply manifestations of this quality.

babaghanouj wrote:

LieutKaffee wrote: Am I a gunner?

417 posts in less than a month is a good start

Just kidding, kaffee, I know that was just the NYU thread/obsession.

By implication, then, you agree with:

I tend to think TLS characteristics such as frequency of posts, average length of posts, quality of writing, propensity for giving advice, etc. may be positively correlated with present or future gunnerism.

Gunner is a subjective term; it's definition is fulfilled by the expectations of the person using it.

Generally, a gunner is someone who talks in class about irrelevant facts and sucks up to the teacher; it's the law school version of a "teacher's pet" I suppose.

Pure speculation, but if I wanted to apply the term to undergrad from the way I've seen it described on here:

A gunner is the kid in philosophy class who always raises his hand immediately then says something with a lot of 'likes' in it, going in circles, missing the professor's question completely.

The kid in philosophy class who looks around and raises his hand after a moment of silence (to see if others want to talk first), then hints to a bigger idea rather succinctly, enabling the professor to elaborate, is not a gunner.

Please, those more knowledgeable, let me know if this intuition is on point or not.

mistergoft wrote:Gunner is a subjective term; it's definition is fulfilled by the expectations of the person using it.

Generally, a gunner is someone who talks in class about irrelevant facts and sucks up to the teacher; it's the law school version of a "teacher's pet" I suppose.

Yes, but if it was truly subjective, it would be much more difficult than is apparent for people to use it in coherent conversation. This points to some kind of consensus.